Hot answers tagged

13

I'll bite: advancement of planetary science is currently the main goal of space exploration. Thus, on-topic at SEx.SE. Specifically: On-topic questions about lithosphere, atmosphere, hydro/cryosphere, ionosphere of Solar System bodies, if these questions can be answered with current or near future technology (regardless of where the scientific equipment is -...


13

Advice about dangerous personal amateur projects is off-topic Understand that space exploration is inherently dangerous. While there are some foolhardy people who have done amateur work in this area, the Space.SE community has decided that we will not help people engaged in amateur endeavors to get into low orbit and/or space--at least where it concerns ...


11

I don't feel too strongly about it, but I lean towards saying it's on-topic; we have a few "what does this terminology used by astronauts mean" questions, and just because the answer applies to aviation as well as astronautics doesn't make it off-topic. I agree that we don't need one Q/A per NATO phonetic alphabet codeword. :)


10

No, I'm personally against defining reasons for what is or isn't within the scope of our Q&A based on popular literature, their respective authors, or popularity of the topics they wrote about within their popular literature titles, because that might in itself imply greater credibility of such sources and their respective authors than it might be ...


10

I think it would be on topic because they are employed (at least in this instance) for the purpose of a space launch.


9

Note: had the battery been Pu-239 - and a bunch of RTG batteries used in space missions are made from decommissioned nukes, so a person not informed on details of the mission could reasonably expect that was the case - the theory cited would have been quite viable. That wasn't the case, end of story, case closed, thank you. My opinion is a short, quick and ...


9

I'm against issuing a specific regulation on this sort of questions. JCRM is right - if the question didn't show any research effort or is completely misguided, we already have tools to deal with that. Downvotes, close votes (unclear, off-topic, too broad). Sometimes though the questions are quite interesting, and yield good answers referencing obscure but ...


9

I agree, to take that wording literally would wipe out hundreds of interesting questions about space exploration history. (Unless, I guess, the questioner is writing a book about space exploration)


8

Here's the thing about Python. It is an extremely popular choice for this type of thing because it has a bunch of great libraries, so I'm not sure we can avoid questions involving Python. As much as possible these questions should be about the actual implementation of space operations in Python and not the usage of a particular library, or the regular usage ...


8

There are a couple of problems here: No one is required to sacrifice their time to explain things to you. Of course, getting further information can be necessary, but it absolutely doesn't have to come from a specific person. When someone takes an action for a reason that is not clear, it can be difficult sometimes for others to fill in the gaps, but that's ...


7

Well, what other questions are we supposed to have? Rocket science, artificial satellites, and their operation? Good, but what purpose would they serve, if not gathering data on the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and all other celestial bodies, their interactions, and prospects for our use of them to our advantage, beyond merely observing shiny object twinkling ...


7

While I understand your concerns, doing such (grouping together some very vast fields of study) undermines the purpose of Stack Exchange all together. We are trying to build libraries of specialized and specific information, so something such as a broad question really doesn't fit. That being said, it always bugs me to turn people down who are asking genuine ...


6

A few additional points. planetary-science is definitely on topic here. I don't think the public completely mixes the space/ astronomy, although there is a perception that they are in the same realm. I don't know of anyone who calls sending a space probe to Jupiter Astronomy, that seems fundamentally different than studying the stars. There are many ...


6

Point 1: Terraforming should be on topic here, so long as it's kept realistic. There have been many questions on the subject, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to ban them. Point 2: I'm not sure if I care. I've started a post on MSO asking about this question, what to do about unintentional cross posting, hopefully the community there will come up ...


6

The question was closed as off-topic because it really belonged on Astronomy.SE. Ordinarily it would have been migrated there, together with all its comments and answers. At the time this question was asked Astronomy had not yet gone live, though. It opened in early October 2013, about two months after this question. By that time the question was too old to ...


6

When the question is about Python itself (a generic question on how to implement something, or about a programming error) it might be worth moving to Stack Overflow. On the other hand, if it's like "I have this script and the result looks wrong", or "I expected algorithm X from library Y to converge on problem Z, but instead I got this", perhaps it's worth ...


6

My take on this. The Space Shuttle is always a spacecraft, and occasionally a plane. That means pretty much every question you have about it is on-topic here. By contrast, only specific aspects about the shuttle are on-topic at aviation.SE, in most cases that means the landing phase. If a question is on-topic both places, you should consider where the ...


6

Space is space! In addition to the exploration of space we have well-used tags on space-related activities such as (clickable links): weapon military icbm (hat tip to @DrSheldon) international-politics and even reduced-gravity-manufacturing reduced-gravity-sports reduced-gravity-cooking astronaut-lifestyle The linked Wikipedia article Operation Fishbowl ...


6

I'll add a contra-position answer to permit voting. I think any questions in the Space Exploration Stack Exchange should make it clear how they are related explicitly to the exploration of space, particularly by the use of space craft. If we were to extend the remit to all topics that relate to knowledge of space, such as celestial mechanics, we end up ...


5

The appropriate format is the site blog. Of course, we don't have a blog, so that's a bit problematic... Short of that, brag about it in chat?


5

OK, let's go top down. The first one you mention, How long is the aerodynamic heating during reentry? is closed as too broad because there is no way to give even rough estimates for an unknown, yet specific launch vehicle that OP later mentions in the comments, and then rather asks for a simulation software (a whole different question), where he would have ...


5

It can be hard to draw the line. Who determines what is a nutcase theory and what isn't? If the source is notable enough, perhaps some of those would fit on Skeptics.


5

So what is the correct action I should take? As you deem appropriate, actually. Our review system is supposed to be community driven, so it's up to you, and all of us, to find a suitable balance where we accept broad questions (and probably also answer them in a broad sense then), and where we start asking of their authors to be more specific in comments, ...


5

Summary: Speculative concepts should require a large number of net positive scored questions prior to meriting a tag. Sometimes we have a problem that it's not clear where the line is. In this case, I would say it is rather clear that this has crossed the line. As you said, it is one question about something that Musk mentioned one time. That doesn't need a ...


5

Machavity is spot-on. I would add one more point: Even if you are an authorized and responsible person, there are other people out there who are not Even if it were somehow okay for us to discuss these matters with the specific person asking the question, keep in mind that this site is readable by the public. We don't want some 13-year-old to try ...


5

I guess I was fairly called out there. Regarding the specific question in place (which had a good reception from the community), It does ask a rather technical question, but it provided no context to the question. Why would spacecraft a design refrain from using computers? As an engineer in modern times there are quite a few specific situations in which an ...


5

I have often observed that many groups or places of work bear the 'scars' of some of its most trying members. The sign in the office that says "flush the toilet" or "constructive criticism ONLY!", the sign in the gym saying "Don't rest the weights against the mirror". They usually come about because of one person, and persist well after that one person (and ...


5

The last comment there about shopping questions being general SE no-no's is pretty conclusive, as is asking for people's opinions. Both of these off-topic reasons are fairly self-evident. It looks exactly like a promotion to me btw. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't, because one can't be sure, if it looks like one, then it's probably off-topic.


5

Since it seems people are hesitant to stake out an answer, I would like to offer a suggestion. I didn't want to offer my own opinion because I wanted to give the community a chance to decide, but instead of offering an opinion I'll give an estimation of what the community wants based on what types of questions were closed. With the exception of the recently ...


5

There is an identify-this-object tag for just this sort of thing and it's quite active and well-written questions are generally well-received. Your question should contain basic information about the photo including at least the approximate location, time and date and any other details you have. I see that you do have estimated time and location so this ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible